The Synchrotron-Light for Experimental Science and Applications center (SESAME) in Jordan

The facility which costs USD 90 million is located in the Jordanian town of Al-Balqa and is funded by member states with support from UNESCO and the European Union. Initial funds for the building and site were offered by the government of Jordan. That coupled with annual contributions including pledges of USD 5 million each from member states of Egypt, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority cover for staff and other operational costs[1]. The European Union through CERN has also pledged 5 million dollars alongside grants from UNESCO and IAEA. The funds provided by IAEA were used for training scientists and engineers[2]. Similarly, substantial contributions were provided by Italy amounting to 3.56 million dollars till date which have been used to procure equipment and build a hostel for SEASME[3]. Founded on the model of Europe’s state of the art physics research laboratory, OPEN SESAME is the Muslim world’s only leading synchrotron.[4] ^[5]    The project signaling the dawn of a new era of scientific collaboration is modeled and conceptualized around CERN, the world’s largest and most powerful particle collider located in Geneva.

What is SESAME?  

The synchrotron is a particle accelerator that can be used to analyze and study almost anything from environmental pollutants to human body tissues. The principle behind it is that it uses a light source that scientists can use to gather information about the structural and chemical properties of the materials at the molecular level. Globally, there are around 60 synchrotrons driving scientific research and functioning as incredible tools in medicine and engineering but SESAME is the first one in the Middle East where expert physicists and researchers practice advanced science and research.

The synchrotron is a large machine about the size of a football field that is used to accelerate electrons at a high speed. The 130 meter accelerator shoots electrons propelling them at high energy and guiding them through a circular tube. They are shot like cannon balls travelling almost at the speed of light. The resultant beam is directed towards an area where the experiments are performed. Each beam line has a specialized wavelength that can be used to analyze a broad variety of materials that are otherwise invisible to the human eye. The synchrotron has wide applications in the fields of chemistry, biology, electronics, medicine, engineering, and archeology.

The idea of the project, led by British physicist Prof Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, was conceptualized almost 20 years ago and faced obstacles of varying nature along the way.

The Middle Eastern synchrotron faced a host of obstacles due to the complex nature of the project. The plan faced financial and technical delays almost at its onset. The hurdles were further aggravated due to regional sensitivities, governmental hostilities and miniscule science and research budgets of the member states. Iran’s contribution of 5 million dollars as part of its individual pledge faced delays due to international sanctions on banking. Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency is also an observer on the SEASME council. Despite such immense challenges, the venture still managed to materialize in the form of a world class interdisciplinary research laboratory.

What exactly does SESAME do?

Today, SESAME is capable of generating of up to 20 beamlines but scientists have initially planned to work with three.

The first is an X-ray light that has applications in environmental research and can be employed to identify potential sources of environmental pollution.

The second is an infrared light that can be used to study the structural and chemical properties of cells and their proteins.

The third MX (Macromolecular Crystallography – a radiation technique used to study biological molecules) can be used to study the structural characteristics of viruses in order to develop effective drugs against them. Efforts are underway to introduce an imaging beamline to study archaeological or cultural heritage artefacts.

The project open to international and Middle Eastern researchers in universities and scientists, has already received 55 proposals to use the first two beamlines. In Jordan, an advanced research center has been established to study globally relevant problems pertaining to the environment and public health. A project to determine the causes of soil pollution in the Jordan River Valley spearheaded by scientist Messaoud Harfouche and other collaborators from Egypt and Jordan is underway. Similarly researchers are probing the causes and environmental factors linked to cancer which is on the rise in the Middle Eastern region.

In addition, an advanced training program was initiated to train scientists and engineers from the region to impart critical knowledge about the accelerator technology and its uses. Sesame has successfully conducted 30 trainings in the Middle East and other countries and has trained 750 scientists and engineers about the applications of synchrotron technology. The program also offers opportunities of international exposure and collaboration where around 105 research students and scientists were given the opportunity to gain firsthand experience of using the radiation sources by spending up to two years at other synchrotron radiation facilities in Europe, USA and Asia. This program enjoys the support of IAEA and the European Union.

The region’s first synchrotron and the only one being powered by renewable energy holds tremendous potential for advancements in research and technology for future generations. It is the transformative power of science that has enabled scientists and researchers from countries like Iran and Israel to work together despite tensions between their regional countries.

The facility will serve to usher in a new era of scientific knowledge and discovery in this part of the world fostering international scientific collaborations, promoting the development of industrial processes and providing individuals with an environment for scientific research and collaboration. SESAME aspires to reverse the brain drain in the region by promoting research in fields ranging from medicine and biology, through materials science, physics and chemistry to healthcare, the environment, agriculture and archaeology.

Along with this, SESAME also fosters scientific and technological capacity building in the Middle East and neighboring regions. Enhanced scientific links are being developed to nurture a culture of peace through collaboration on scientific advancements.

[1] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ON-Jordan-inaugurates-regions-first-synchrotron-1705177.html

[2] http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ON-Jordan-inaugurates-regions-first-synchrotron-1705177.html

[3] http://www.sesame.org.jo/sesame/images/News/SESAME-Opening/Souvenir_Booklet.pdf

[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39927836

[5] https://phys.org/news/2017-05-sesame-science-centre-inaugurated-jordan.html

In August 1977 I met Steven Hawking during a coffee break of the 8^th conference on General Relativity and Gravitation held at Waterloo University (Canada). I asked him, “Do you think, Professor Hawking, that behind all these equations and mathematical formulations that we are presenting on boards of this conference, there could be something that goes beyond physical and mathematical reality so it cannot be described with mathematical equations?” Hawking paused for a while, turning his head slowly from the left side to the right and said, “If there is something, I believe it has to be logical.” Then I asked, “But does your intuition tell you anything about this?” He replied, “I can only say that I am searching for the answer.”

About ten years later and after  getting a result showing that the universe could have existed for endless imaginary time before its physical existence, Steven Hawking proclaimed: “What place, then,  for a creator?” (Hawking and Mlodinow 2008) In this he is ignoring the fact that imaginary quantities are mathematical entities that cannot be directly measured despite their important role in the mathematical formulations of physics.

Investigating the quantum state of the vacuum, Hawking found that the universe could have been created from nothing by gravity only, accordingly again he claims in his book The Grand Design that there is no need for the creator. Similar claims were made by Lawrence Krauss in his book Something from Nothing.

Both Hawking and Krauss are ignoring the fact that a very strong gravity (or spacetime warp) is needed in fact to convert nothing into something. Virtual particles, which are assumed to be present within the quantum vacuum, cannot spontaneously pop out without the presence of a strong gravitational field. Paul Davies admits this fact but he argues that it could be a matter of semantics (Davies 1984).

Confronted with facts that points to a kind of transcendental existence in a debate with John Polkinghorne during the SSQ conference (2002), Steven Weinberg exclaimed, “My argument can be falsified if a fiery sword will come from nowhere and hit me for my impiety.” In a similar position during a public lecture, Lawrence Krauss agreed that he may believe in God if he finds one evening that the stars are aligned in the sky to read, “I am here.” This implies that both Weinberg and Krauss can see the necessity for God only if the universe is run miraculously. A miraculously-run universe is described by the absence of any order or law that can explain it. In fact such a universe may not need God altogether but a mere force to sustain the chaos. This is what usually one would expect out of blind nature.

When Richard Dawkins tried to stretch the hypothesis of multiverse to refute a pre-setting of a fine-tuned universe and has put the question to Steven Weinberg during an interview, Weinberg remarked that one should not underestimate the fix that atheists are in: that consistent mathematical results cannot be guaranteed to be describing realistic states since there are many consistent mathematical formulations that do not find real presence in nature.

Now we ask: Has science killed the belief in God? This is a delicate question indeed, for it involves several terms that have to be identified and precisely defined first. This question comes in a philosophical as well as theological context and may require serious encounter with scientific knowledge on a specialized level.

The answer could be YES for a certain understanding of the concept God, and could be NO for another understanding of what we mean by God. So, first we need to define what we mean by God. Without such a definition, one may then confuse it with superstition or the idiot’s God. Second, we need to discuss whether the world needs God, and whether this need is psychological, physiological, epistemological, or otherwise practical. On the other hand we need to discuss the question whether this need is temporal due to lack of our information, or is it a fundamental part of the truth of our world. In all cases we should remember that our views are always bounded with the extent of our knowledge at the given time; for no one can claim that science has reached ultimate knowledge.

Who is God?

Apart from the religious concept of God, here I shall first discuss the rather minimal view adopted by Keith Ward which says that “God is a non-physical being of consciousness and intelligence or wisdom, who creates the universe for the sake of distinctive values that the universe generates.” (Ward 2014)

One might consider the terms ‘non-physical’ and ‘consciousness’ as being incompatible, for consciousness might be considered to require physical existence of sensors in order to achieve sensation. Accordingly, this definition of God is embedding the assumption that consciousness might exist in a non-physical form. But what is physical and what is non-physical? From our modern understanding, we can construe that a physical entity is something that can always be addressed in real time with validated causal relationships, and by causal I mean the verifiable relationships in which a cause precedes the effect. A physical object has to be measurable. Complex numbers, for example, are not measurable, thus are to be considered non-physical. However, complex numbers are an essential part of the mathematical formulation by which we understand nature. Therefore, a simple understanding of God perhaps is to say that God is a symbol pointing to a supernatural agency standing behind, but not necessarily limited to, the creation, sustainment and maintenance of the universe. God is an order that validates the laws of nature. Being supernatural, such identity cannot be studied with pure reason alone and might not be fully comprehensible.

Laws of Nature

What other major factor would render the belief in God obsolete other than saying that the world needs no God because the laws of nature are ruling the whole game? But, then, what are the laws of nature and can they stand for the role of God?

During the seventeenth century the notion of laws of nature started to crystallize;   Descartes (1596-1650) was perhaps the first in the West to discuss the existence of ‘laws or rules of nature’. In the Principles of Philosophy he stated three laws concerning the natural motion of bodies and a conservation rule for the quantity of motion. Descartes connected laws of nature to the activity of a transcendent immutable God. A very good analysis of the concept of laws of nature in the Cartesian and other philosophies during the seventeenth century can be seen in (Jalobeanu 2001). This claim, and all the other laws, are grounded explicitly in the activity of a transcendent God on his creation. Descartes held a version of the doctrine of continual recreation. Garber tells us that ‘the idea of a law of inanimate nature remains quite distinctively Cartesian throughout much of the seventeenth century.’(Garber 2013) The notion of a law of nature cannot be found, for example, in other reformers of the period such as Francis Bacon (1561-1626) or Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

In contrast, Hobbes (1588-1679) did not think that God has any role to play in natural philosophy. In order to explain how a law of nature works, he resorted to geometry. The way in which Hobbes explained nature through geometry was to say that a body at rest will remain at rest just because it has the

Thomas Hobbes

possibility to move in any and all directions. Since there is no preferred direction for motion, the body would have to remain at rest. A similar argument applies to a body in constant motion. This kind of understanding is ignoring the need for an active agency to activate the action of such events. The geometrical argument is similar to saying that a free stone falls on the ground just because there is a gravitational force between the stone and the Earth. But here we are ignoring to ask where gravity comes from and who is activating the gravitational force to work? If you are a free rational thinker you would set up such questions no doubts, but if you would like to ignore such a query you would always be able to attribute the action of the gravity to another cause, the existence of mass according to Newton or the presence of a curvature of the spacetime according to Einstein. Hobbes denied divine intervention as he could not understand how the non-physical can affect the physical. This we can see through the following paragraph of Hobbes as cited by (Garber 2013)

The subject of [natural] Philosophy, or the matter it treats of, is every body of which we can conceive any generation, and which we may, by any consideration thereof, compare with other bodies, or which is capable of composition and resolution; that is to say, every body of whose generation or properties we can have any knowledge. [. . .] Therefore, where there is no generation or property, there is no philosophy. Therefore it excludes Theology, I mean the doctrine of God, eternal, ingenerable, incomprehensible, and in whom there is nothing neither to divide nor compound, nor any generation to be conceived.

In fact the question of how a non-physical entity can affect a physical entity is one of the big challenging questions at present in the science and religion debates.

Modern sciences, mainly physics and biology, may have contributed to weaken the belief in God by assuming that the universe can be explained through a collection of self-acting laws that can be expressed in mathematical forms. This eventually means that the universe is logically intelligible on the basis of deterministic causality. Classical celestial mechanics, for example, has verified this deterministic causality to the extent that allowed Pierre Laplace (1747-1827) to claim that once the initial conditions for any system are known then one can predict all the subsequent development of the system without the need to invoke intervention of the divine. He said,

We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such intelligence. (Laplace 1840)

The view that the world is developing independent of the notion of God was culminated later by the declaration of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) that God is dead. This same belief in deterministic causality may have motivated Albert Einstein to ask if “God had any choice in creating the universe.”

Modern Views

Some intellectuals believe that the advancement of science has kept no place for God. In replying to the big questions of the John Templeton Foundation, Christopher Hitchens, editor of the Portable Atheist, sees no point in claiming that there remains even a little evidence about the existence of God. “To say that there is little ‘scientific’ evidence for the last proposition is to invite a laugh. There is no evidence for it, period.” (Hitchens 2014)

Hitchens asks, “What plan, or planner, determined that millions of humans would die without even a grave marker, for our first 200,000 years of struggling and desperate existence, and that there would only then at last be a “revelation” to save us, about 3,000 years ago, but disclosed only to gaping peasants in remote and violent and illiterate areas of the Middle East?”

But here Hitchens is dealing with the creator as if he is the employer and God is a contractor. This is not the case. One may object to the way the universe is run, and to how things are designed, for example Dawkins considered the long nerve passing all the way through the neck of the Giraffe a sign of bad design, despite the fact that he does not possess all the knowledge of the function of the animal body. Reality suggests that we are spectators in this universe, we should admit this fact and realize that a ruler would not necessarily care to take the discretion of other creatures into his action or plan.

Stuart Kaufmann, the director of the Institute for Bio-complexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary claims that we need to develop our understanding of God. He thinks that we should abandon thinking of a supernatural God and replace that notion with a natural God. In his response to the question posed by the Templeton Foundation, Kaufmann says, “The schism between science and religion can be healed, but it will require a slow evolution from a supernatural, theistic God to a new sense of a  fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe. This healing may also require a transformation of science to a new scientific worldview with a place for the ceaseless creativity in the universe that we can call God.” (Kaufman 2014)

He calls upon us to ‘re-invent the sacred’ despite admitting that this goal is dangerous as it implies that the sacred is invented. However, he asserts that having our understanding of God being under continuous change over the ages indicates that “It is we who have told our gods what is sacred, not they who have told us.” This means that our comprehension of God has defined his sacred status. Well, one may say that this might be true in the case of Christianity and Judaism, but may not be the case in Islam. Scriptures of the Bible are but the reflections and the understanding of the followers of Moses and Jesus Christ, while the Qur’ān is believed to be the direct word of Allah revealed to Muhammad. Nevertheless, we should admit that as far as the divine attributes are concerned, the Qur’ān presents similar, may be less personal, attributes in Allah. The Qur’ān describes Allah as the creator, the sustainer, the omniscient, the omnipotent who can hear, speaks and see. The point to make here is that along with these personal attributes the Qur’ān also mention that ‘Nothing resembles Him’; meaning that nothing is like Allah and the given attributes are only meant to be exposed examples. For this reason the Muʿtazilites declared that the attributes of Allah are intrinsic part of his character and is not an additional meaning to be added to him. Wolfson (Wolfson 1976) has studied the problem of the denial of the reality of the divine attributes in much details. However, taken within the practical deliberation of these attributes, the popular concept of God in the mind of an average Muslim has more or less, similar patronage to that in the mind of Jews and Christians. This was established since the early centuries of the Islamic era.

The presentation of the divine as a personal agency places many obstacles against achieving a vivid comprehension of God. With this personal deliberation we face many difficult questions concerning the realization of the notion of the divine in his existence, action and purpose.

But would it be serious to think of God who is unphysical to affect our physical world? Michael Shremer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, approaches this question by reminding us that “Science traffics in the natural, not the supernatural. The only God that science could discover would be a natural being, an entity that exists in space and time and is constrained by the laws of nature. A supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no science could know Him.” (Shremer 2014) On the other side, Keith Ward finds that if we agree on his above definition of God, then “it follows that a non-physical conscious intelligence is possible — so a materialist view that all existent things must be physical, or must have location in space-time and must be subject to the causal laws of such a space-time, must be false.” Clearly then, it is the different concepts of God that cause the difference of opinions in responding to this question.

Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Browns University, criticized the atheists for mistakenly considering God to be part of the natural world and failing to find him there. He says, “The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself.” (Miller 2014) Indeed, if you believe in God or you are a non-believer, either way it is very important to acknowledge that God is not part of the natural world. Being part of the world, such a God would have to abide by the laws of nature and thus could be brought into laboratory tests or tracked by observations. Miller correctly recognizes once again that “The hypothesis of God comes not from a rejection of science, but from a penetrating curiosity that asks why science is even possible, and why the laws of nature exist for us to discover.”

God and the New Physics

Quantum physics, which sprung out of the discoveries made during the first quarter of the last century in the atomic realm, has shaken the well-established confidence in deterministic causality. The wave-like behavior of microscopic particles introduced new concepts in the dynamic of mechanical systems. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not allow for simultaneous identification of the momentum and the position of a particle with absolute certainty. Physical parameters of microscopic systems are found to have a spectrum of values that are distributed probabilistically and that any of them can be predicted only with a limited accuracy. Deterministic presentation of microscopic phenomena, like the hidden variables theories of David Bohm, is outside mainstream physics and several experiments have already ruled out such local hidden variables theories, thus confirming the non-local character of natural phenomena. Here I am referring to Alain Aspect’s experiment of 1982 and the other experiments that followed (for non-technical presentation of these experiments, see (Davies 1984)). Literally, no event is known to happen with 100% accuracy. The world is non-local and things are entangled one way or another. This fact is independent of the theories and their involved interpretations, and no matter what arguments are presented in defense of the deterministic view, the established fact is that nature is indeterministic since it has been established by many laboratory experiments. Here we can then ask the question: can the laws of nature stand for the assumed role of God?

In the old kalām cosmological view, especially the Ashʿarite description, the world is understood to be composed of atoms, each of which is made of a substance and a set of accidents (Dhanani 1994). The substance, called jawhar, is fixed and the accidents (called a‘raḍ) are the ever changing properties that the jawhar may acquire and which is assumed not to endure two instances. Such a picture allows for the action of an external agency dominating the events and controlling the development of the world through the change that takes place on a microscopic scale. The behavior of the world is said to follow some customized rules that we recognize through the persistent occurrence of the natural phenomena. The physical theory of kalām suggests that the world is ruled through certain well-respected principles expressing relations that we are accustomed to recognize among its constituents (Altaie 2010). The world is not a collection of miraculous events, but at the same time is indeterministic according to kalām. This understanding has echoes in contemporary quantum physics, although the two approaches and their explanations are quite different. For more details see (Altaie 2009).  Perhaps it would be necessary here to point to the fact that the kalām view concerning atomism and the detailed structure of matter is different in many fundamental aspects from the views expressed by the Greek atomists as well as the views of the seventeenth century European philosophers who adopted atomism and some versions of the notion of re-creation. For this reason the critiques that address those views do not apply to the views of kalām, and this is a detailed topic that has to be studied in its own merits.

Does the world need God at all?

What sort of a need is there that requires the assumption of the existence of God and his action in the world? Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist, says: “It’s certainly conceivable that the methods of science could lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe that doesn’t involve God in any way” (Carroll 2012). This sort of claim is repeated in many essays and books. But how can the method of science lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe other than through the assumed self-action of the so-called laws of nature? If we recognize that laws of nature are actually the phenomena that occur in nature, then by the fact that these phenomena are indeterministic it would be legitimate to ask if these laws can act on their own? Well, as long as the efficacy of these laws become probabilistic, I cannot see how these laws would act on their own; being indeterministic, the action of these laws will be pending the decision by another agency. How then can we claim that the universe is self-contained and needs no agency to run it?

To be able to predict the natural abundance of elements in the universe, for example, is certainly something fascinating and is a bold exposition of the ability of the human mind to discover the logic according to which the universe is developing, but by no means can this be considered evidence for the absence of a ruling agency. Our endeavor to understand how the world develops will never end and whatever claim is made for reaching ultimate knowledge is only a dream of the ignorant. Let us not be deceived by what we call laws of physics, and perhaps we need to read again some of the original arguments presented by Nancy Cartwright in her classic book How the Laws of Physics Lie (Cartwright 1983) and also her essay, No God, No Laws  (Cartwright 2008), in which she argues that “the concept of a law of Nature cannot be made sense of without God.” Obviously, Cartwright has treated the subject from a philosophical perspective, whereas here I am presenting the argument from the scientific perspective in the light of the discoveries of quantum mechanics.

We need to assess the value of science and expose whether it can be taken as an absolute reference for the truth. This is needed in order to know the meaning and the value of our scientific knowledge. Experience tells us that science is a product of our cognition and the laws of physics are only our constructions of the observed facts of nature. This we have learned from the history of science particularly our knowledge about gravitation where Einstein’s theory of general relativity offered us a picture about gravity totally different from that of Newton and it was shown that Newton’s picture was conceptually in contrast with Einstein’s theory despite the fact that the former provided us for centuries with very accurate calculations for movements of the bodies in the solar system.

Then, is it our logic and the structure of our cognitive capabilities which is shaping the need for God? Certainly, yes. It is our built-in logic which tells us that precise systems as the ones that we see in our world and the directive development of these systems: the big bang, biological evolution, the fate of the stars, the presence of black holes as gates for other worlds; all these need to be designed by a supreme power that has knowledge of everything. Chance and necessity, being relevant parts of the structure, play the role of relevant factors for manipulating the game, but certainly the game itself is not played by chance and necessity alone. Therefore, I would agree with Keith Ward in saying that “It is not science that renders belief in God obsolete. It is a strictly materialist interpretation of the world that renders belief in God obsolete, and which  science is taken by some people to support.”

References

Altaie, M. B. (2009). Daqīq al-Kalām: The Islamic Perspective for Natural Philosophy, ‘Ālam al-Kutub al-Ḥadīth, Jordan.

Altaie, M. B. (2010). Matter: an Islamic Perspective. Matter and Meaning: Is matter Sacred or Profane? M. Fuller, Cambridge Scholar Publishing: 87-99.

Carroll, S. (2012). Does the Universe Need God? The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, Wiley: 185-197.

Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie, Cambridge Univ Press.

Cartwright, N. (2008). “No God, No Laws.”

Davies, P. (1984). God and the new physics, Simon and Schuster.

Dhanani, A. (1994). “The physical theory of Kalam.” Brill, Leiden.

Garber, D. (2013). Laws and Order of Nature. The divine order, Human Order and the Order of Nature. E. Watkins. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 45-66.

Hawking, S. and L. Mlodinow (2008). A briefer history of time, Random House.

Hitchens, C. (2014). “Does Science Makes the Belief in God Obslete?”, from http://www.templeton.org/belief/.

Jalobeanu, D. (2001). “Forms, Laws and Active Principles: what happened with the laws of nature in the scientific revolution?” Analele Universităţii de Vest din Timişoara Seria Philosophie/Annales Universitatis Occidentalis Timisiensis Series Philosophia: 5-34.

Kaufman, S. (2014). “Does Science Makes the Belif in God Obslete?”   Retrieved 12/25/2014, from http://www.templeton.org/belief/.

Laplace, P. (1840). “A philosophical essay on probabilities .(FW Truscott, & FL Emory, Trans.) Dover.”

Miller, K. (2014). “Does Science Makes the Blief in God Obslete?”   Retrieved 12/25/2014, from http://www.templeton.org/belief/.

Shremer, M. (2014). “Does Science Make the Belief in God Obslete?”.

Ward, K. (2014). “Does Science Make the Belief in God Obsolete.”   Retrieved 12/25/2014, from http://www.templeton.org/belief/.

Wolfson, H. A. (1976). The philosophy of the Kalam, Harvard University Press.

Mohammed Basil Altaie is a Professor of Physics of Iraqi descent currently at Yarmouk University in Irbid, Jordan.

Introduction

Evolution is used as an example of contradiction between Religion (Islam) and science. I am a scientist and a religious person from the Muslim faith.  I see no contradiction. Why then does this contradiction exist? Who created this myth and why?

Islam has always been open minded asking us to seek knowledge and to question phenomenon around us. Islam asks us to observe, think and come up with hypotheses to explain phenomena. In other words it proposes to Muslims to adopt the scientific method as we call it today in discovering the world around us.

“Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding, Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], “Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.” (Quran 3:190-191)

Our seeking of knowledge is a form of worship on itself.  Because as we discover the  elegance and beauty of Allah in the mechanisms He has created   we start to appreciate His greatness and feel closer to Him. ”

“Only  those fear Allah, from among His servants, who have knowledge.”  Quran 35:28.

It is a way to understand Allah, a journey of  discovery so to speak.  Allah is the only constant. He does not  change. Everything is constantly evolving and changing.

Early Muslim Responses to Evolution

Scientists during the Islamic civilization have been doing just that producing a civilization where scientific discoveries flourished.  Amongst the scholars and scientists Ikhwan Alsafa, Al Jahez and Ibn Khaldoun produced theories similar although rudimentary to the theory of evolution as we know it today (1).

Al Rumi very nicely described his theory of evolution in this poem:

“Man first appeared at the level of inanimate matter

 Then it moved to the level of plants

And lived year and years a plant among the plants

Not remember a thing from its earlier inanimate life

And when it moved from plant to animal

It did not remember anything from its plant life

Except the longing it felt for plants

Especially when spring comes and beautiful flowers bloom

Like the longing of children to their mothers

They don’t know the reason for their longing to their breasts

Then the creator pulled Man –as you know- from its animal state

To his human state

And so Man moved from one natural state

To another natural state

Until he became wise, knowledgeable and strong as he is now

But he does not remember anything from his earlier states

And he will change again from his current state” (1)

The demise of the Othman Empire, colonialism, dictatorships resulted in decline of education and science in the Islamic world in general.

Therefore, when Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859, the Muslim world did not have the qualified natural scientists to understand what it was about.  The actual book was only translated into Arabic in the early twentieth by Ismael Mazhar.  However, the thesis of Darwin had reached the Islamic world through writings of others. Some of Christian religious groups at that time denounced Darwin as an atheist and that the theory of evolution was against religion.  Other Christian groups on the other hand supported Darwin.

This disagreement among Christians did not go unnoticed to the Muslims.  Muslim theologian scholars such as Jisr and Ahmad Medhat did not oppose Darwin and actually addressed the issue of evolution in a rational manner.  However, during the first quarter of the twentieth Darwin’s ideas became associated with colonialism, imperialism, the West, atheism, materialism, racism by different thinkers and writers in the Muslim world (2). Therefore, the Muslim religious scholars gradually took a stand against Darwin and his ideas which the general public adopted. The Muslim scholars used the Creationist Christian arguments to support their stand against Darwin having no natural scientists of their own that were religious Muslims. (3) Therefore transferring the war between science and religion to Islam. Although, it had not existed before.  Not to mention that there were religious groups who used each side of the argument to their advantage politically at some point.

Muslim Scientists’ Approach

In teaching science at the university in the Islamic world a number of important points should be taken into consideration on the topic of Islam and Science in general and evolution in particular:

1. Theology

2. Evolution is not about who created the universe. We explore what is in the universe. We believe there        is a creator who set rules which govern physics, chemistry and biology. Science is about discovering          the laws. Religion is about the why and science is about the how.

3. Confusion in terminology: the word ‘create’ does not necessarily mean spontaneous it could be                    interpreted as over a period of time. Muslims don’t have a problem with the sun and stars taking                billions of years to be created but they do have an issue with living things or specifically humans                taking millions of years to be created.

4.  Time is a dimension and Allah is above all dimensions. Hence, Allah is not governed by time.                       Therefore Muslims should not have any problem with creation taking a long time.

5.   Human fallibility and human religion, including issues of interpretation

6.   One point of contention is that Muslims believe that humans are the epitomy of perfection and                    therefore cannot have evolved from a lower form. This is contradictory to the teachings of Islam.                The Quran warns us from being arrogant as humans. “man does transgress all bounds” Quran 96:6.          We are but one of Allah’s creations and that we are part of the bigger plan of creation. We have been          created in harmony with the rest of creation and we hold a place in the balance of all things.  Islam            states that we are khalefa and should take care of this world living and non living with compassion,            care and mercy. “Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority.” Quran 2:30. This is                important in the context of conservation of the environment and the concept of Global Civics that              was coined by Dr Hakan Altany (4).  We have developed a course on Global civics from the Science/          Muslim perspective for undergraduate science students in the Arab world.

7.    The Quran is not a book of science. It is a guide how to live our lives. Therefore we don’t look into it           for evidence for every scientific discovery.

The interpretation of the Quran is done by humans who try their best. However they are human and may err on one hand and on the other they are interpreting within the scope of knowledge present at that time.  “When a judge gives judgment and strives to know a ruling (ijtahada) and is correct, he has two rewards. If he gives judgment and strives to know a ruling, but is wrong, he has one reward” (5).

Therefore when knowledge changes the interpretation may change and that is one of the beautiful tenets of Islam ijtihad.  Ijtihad (every adequately qualified jurist had the right to exercise such original thinking, mainly ra’y (personal judgment) and qiyas (analogical reasoning) (6).

1. The story of Adam in the Quran as well as other stories should not be taken literary. They are          metaphors to learn lessons.  The process of human evolution was gradual and concerned groups of  humans who evolved from former ancestors.

2. The development of consciousness is also an argument put forward by those who oppose evolution.  They state that the development of consciousness requires divine spontaneous intervention. The  response that I give is that science up till now is still trying to understand the development of the brain  let alone coming up with an explanation for consciousness but that does not refute the theory of  evolution.  Example: In the past people assumed that certain disease were caused by bad spirits and  later we discovered that the disease is caused by viruses.

3. Even as science advances and develops, we must keep in mind that we are limited in our cognition by  our biology. For example ants can only comprehend two dimensions because of how their neurons are  wired in the brain.  Nothing in the world can allow them to comprehend a third dimension.  Similarly  we are limited by how are neurons are connected which will ultimately put a limit on the extent of our  cognition of phenomenon around us.

4. Similarly, I propose that miracles are natural phenomenon that we have not yet discovered the laws    for.

5. The soul is the result of complexity of cellular interconnectivity.

6. Science, with fallibility and provisionality, operating within the created order, but within these      limitations, knowledge that deserves to be taken very serious

7. Science changes all the time. We may find something in the Quran that supports a scientific discovery    and we may not.

8. If there is an apparent contradiction between religion and science we check the science first then the  interpretation of the Quran.

9. Reflection on religious issues in the light of science

10. As history of science and Islam tells us there has never been a serious strife between religion and  science. This new strife around evolution comes from our misunderstanding of our religion on one hand  and lack of scientists on the other.

11. Decisions on issues that are not concerned primarily with theology should be made through the  formation of committees of stakeholders which should include:

• religious scholars,
• Arabic language experts in order to find the best fit meaning for the Arabic word from the Quran within the circumstances, in this case the scientific discoveries to date,
• experts in the field in this case scientists.

Some members should come in without prior knowledge of the religion matter so that they can be unlimited in their imagination and innovation to think of new solutions, ways of approaching the subject. The members should meet, discuss until they reach a consensus.  In addition such a committee should meet regularly to discuss any new advances in the field. Science is dynamic and therefore we must keep up as Muslims in order to advance in both basic and applied sciences. Islam is a religion for all time.

“And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.” Quran 42:38.

Such efforts become paramount in issues that have an application such as stem cell research and therapy. A very good example of applying a multi-stakeholder committee that meets regularly is the example of the stem cell law that was passed in Jordan recently (7). The traditional way of conducting ijtihad at least today does not usually take into consideration all stakeholders. Nor do they meet on a regular basis because science is always advancing and changing therefore new issues arise and old issues contentions change. For example the last time abortion was discussed was in 1985

Most of these points could be addressed if there were a course at the university that explored the philosophy of science from an Islamic perspective. As well as encouragement of studying and researching humanities from with in the Islamic world to produce our own identity that will be the base for any discussion around any apparent controversy around science and religion.

Another point is that in any discussion which we envision disagreement we should strive to establish a common ground first then start exploring the contentions.

Conclusion

The important point here is not whether we are able to convince our students to agree or disagree with evolution.  What we should strive for is to teach/instruct our students to develop a rational methodology of assessing the natural world around them and to think independently to come up with their own opinions, hypotheses and theories.  If we succeed in that endeavor the rest of the controversies between science and religion will be resolved and we will contribute to the creation of a generation of Muslim scientists who are free thinkers.

There have been a few free thinking Muslim pioneers who have attempted to  accommodate evolution from an Islamic point of view.  Examples are: The Book and The Qur’an: A Contemporary Reading by Mohammad Shahrour, The book and the mountain by Mohammd Hassan, Islam and Biological Evolution: Exploring Classical Sources and Methodologies by David Solomon Jalajel.  My father Adam by Shaheen. The approaches adopted vary from author to author.  Regardless of the validity of the arguments adopted by each author it is a step towards providing multiple explanations to remove the contradiction and to open the field to research and discovery.

Damina Howard proposes three categories to describe the relationship between science and religion in this case Islam.  In my approach towards science I lean towards the following relationship where to me it is an ongoing dialogue between religion and science. Where one (religion) seeks to guide how to live our lives and the other (science) deals with discovering how the world works.  Both will cross over each other.  For example as science seeks to understand the higher functions of the brain and what does conscience means. One ultimately enters into the realm of religion.  Therefore, my approach to both religion and science is an ongoing journey of discovery i.e. the relationship is fluid. It flows like a stream which fits the description stated by Damian Howard:

“Hence, there is a real and pressing need for dialogue and mutual critique. But it’s not about achieving “harmony” once and for all as in cognitive propositionalism but a constant dialectic of mutual interrogation. Which is rather a good description of one’s actual experience of the field. There is no final answer, no ultimate stability.”(8)

This is the path I propose Muslim scientists should adopt.

I want to highlight that the notion that evolution contradicts Islam, is a myth, and is an example of what happens when we misunderstand our religion. Islam calls for freedom to think and explore.  The lack of freedom to think which comes from misunderstanding of our religion results in borrowing from other cultures.

Other examples are modern women rights, modern education systems. These issues have all came up against west colonialism, imperialism

Can you think of others?

Our aim is not so much to debate evolution as it is to suggest that the mainstream approach to the theory is a symptom of a larger problem. This problem consists of certain attitudes towards science and culture being imported into Muslim societies in a process of Western globalization that often precludes the development of a uniquely local approach. In the case of Muslim societies, now is the opportunity to think independent of the received framework in order to pursue more rigorously our relationship to science, and the world at large

The issue is not religious authority versus scientific authority it is an ongoing process based on rational methodology in seeking the truth.

References

1. Nidhal Guessoum Islam’s Quantum question I. B. Tauris 2011 p308

2. Marwa Elshakry, “Muslim hermeneutics and Arabic views of evolution”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 46 (2, June 2011), 330-344,

3.  Dajani, R Evolution and Islam’s Quantum Question Zygon vol. 47 no. 2 page 343-353 June 2012

4. Hakan Altany Global civics

5. Bukhari (b00), 9.133: 7352 (a2)

6. Aksoy, S. (2005) Making regulations and drawing up legislation in Islamic countries under conditions of uncertainty, with special reference to embryonic stem cell research. J Med Ethics, 31, 399-403.

7. Dajani, R Jordan’s stem-cell law can guide the Middle East. Nature. 2014 Jun 12;510(7504):189.

8. Damian Howard’s commentary on Stephano Bigliardis article on harmonizing Islam and science. http://social-epistemology.com/2014/09/24/some-reflections-on-stefano-bigliardis-on-harmonizing-islam-and-science-damian-howard/#comments

Rana Dajani is Ph.D. in molecular biology, University of Iowa, USA. She is currently working as a consultant to the Higher Council for Science and Technology in Jordan. She has written in Science and Nature about science and women in the Arab world. She is also on the UN Women Civil Society Advisory Group in Jordan.

The paper was submitted to the Task Force on Science and Islam (‘Muslim responses to Science’s big questions’). The big question that the Task Force sought to address is: Can Islam’s theological teachings be reconciled with cutting edge discoveries in the world of science?

Published online 20 November 2014

In the not-too-distant past, biomedical research was conducted almost exclusively in North America and Western Europe. While Asia and South America have made impressive strides in contributing to scientific output over the past two decades, the Arab world is still lagging.

Ali A. Bazarbachi, Samia J. Khoury and Mohamed H. Sayegh

Populations in the Middle East are generally afflicted with diseases similar to those prevalent in Western countries. These include cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and neurological disorders. However, regional specificities have had an impact.

A high rate of consanguinity has led to various hereditary disorders. There has also been a significant increase in metabolic disorders, specifically in the Gulf region, largely attributed to widespread changes in diet and lifestyle. Furthermore, healthcare systems have been undermined by political instability and strife, resulting in an increase in infectious diseases, malnutrition and disability.

The concept of advanced biomedical research still does not exist in most of the region, with the exception of Turkey and Iran. Recent developments in biomedical research have surfaced in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region as well, with major investment in the creation of research infrastructure and research funding. But the fruits of such effort are yet to appear because of the absence of a critical mass of committed scientists.

Most of the region’s medical schools and universities offer the transmission of ‘second-hand’ knowledge in the absence of a true research culture. A general disinterest in scientific research adversely affects the quality of teaching and cultivates a culture of apathy.

Most active research is championed by a few dynamic individuals, based on their earlier achievements abroad, with little or no institutional incentives. They mostly collaborate with their university of origin in the United States or Europe and there is scant meaningful collaboration between institutions at the national or regional level.

The region’s participation in the advancement of science and medical discovery is important. Breakthroughs will improve quality of life for Middle Eastern people and ensure better patient care. There is also a need to attract internationally renowned investigators to create a nucleus of future scientific leaders.

Scientists should be encouraged toward personal academic growth. We need to involve students in medical research by bringing the latest research findings, including the results of a faculty’s own research activities, into the classrooms. This will generate research productivity and quality publications to increase the success rate in extramural funding, and pave the way to establish PhD and MD-PhD programmes in basic medical science.

Proposed solutions

The culture of research must be nurtured across society. This should start at the most basic level; as part of school curricula. Research is a complex process requiring critical thinking and strategic planning. Teaching students these skills would motivate them to be involved in research and provide them with a solid basis for the future.

The public must also be educated about research. There are many non-governmental organizations in the region, some of which are involved in supporting patients with particular diseases. In collaboration with the local governments and universities, these NGOs could provide education to the public about the importance of proper research and how it should be conducted.

The development of basic biomedical research can be encouraged by building on the strengths of the few areas where a critical mass of high-quality research already exists. This could be achieved by establishing regional collaborative groups for translational and clinical research.

These groups could then be used to launch meaningful investigator-initiated clinical trials and to forge partnership with the pharmaceutical industry. Regional incubators or centres of excellence are also needed to better manage resources and to attract investigators from abroad. They can also generate science-based innovations if partnerships with industry are established.

These centres require solid evaluation, auditing and quality assurance mechanisms. Based on track record, size and relative stability, the American University of Beirut Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center in Lebanon, the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center in Saudi Arabia, and other centers in the Gulf area (such as Kuwait Science Foundation or Qatar Foundation) could spearhead this programme with the goal of integrating others at a later stage. The initial centres can establish a network that allows mobility of researchers, students and technicians.

A vital step in propelling research is establishing a regional, cross-border institute for funding of biomedical research. This should be similar to the National Institute of Health in the US or the European Research Council, and be funded by private donors, governments and foundations. Funding should be merit-based and dependent on the ongoing quality of research.

Research productivity must be scientifically evaluated through a regional watchdog with a special focus on promoting original publications in high impact journals. This body can also determine initial funding of the centres of excellence and regularly evaluate them. As research is now evolving rapidly at a high rate, support mechanisms and government regulations should allow for rapid decisions, quick customs procedures and easy international contacts.

We propose the establishment of a think-tank at the highest regional level (for example the deans of certain medical schools and heads of research institutes in the region) to develop the potential structure for the regional funding agency described above. This group would then become the figurehead for persuading governments, foundations and the private sector to create a regional NIH-like structure for the region.

This is a priority and an essential step to put the region on the map in biomedical research. We believe that we have the resources and the brainpower, but we need the stimulus.

As Seneca said: it is not because things are difficult we do not dare, it is because we do not dare things are difficult.

The authors are all members of the American University in Beirut’s Faculty of Medicine.

doi:10.1038/nmiddleeast.2014.263

This article was originally published on NatureAsia. Read the original article.
Featured Image Credits: Thinkstock